Need for Hearings and Ex Parte Rules

Resolution ALJ-176-3067, issued on July 12, 2001, made a preliminary ruling that hearings are necessary. Parties disagreed about the need for evidentiary hearings in this case. PG&E requested that its application be resolved without hearings. Although it did not request hearings in its protest, at the PHC, Rocklin asserted that Section XIV.B of GO 131-D requires that the Commission hold a hearing if the utility and local agencies cannot resolve differences regarding land-use matters. Because the adoption of mitigation measures in the RMND/IS resolve the bulk of the visual and safety issues raised in the protests and at the PHC, I rule that no hearings are required. I will place a decision before the Commission to change the hearing designation. Consistent with Rule 6.6, once the Commission has approved the change in hearing designation, ex parte communications will be permitted consistent with Rule 7(e). Until such decision has been adopted, ex parte communications are permitted only if consistent with the requirements set forth in Rule 7(c), and are subject to the reporting requirements set forth in Rule 7.1.